NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress of 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is interim president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and interim vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This work relates to Department of the Army Contract DAADO5-93-C-0076 issued by the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground Support Activity. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision.
Additional copies of this report are available from:
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics
National Research Council HA 178
2101 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
WORKING GROUP ON ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO HIGH-ENERGY IMPULSIVE SOUNDS
William J. Galloway (Chair),
Tarzana, California
David F. Dinges,
Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia
Sanford Fidell,
BBN Acoustic Technologies Division, Canoga Park, California
Howard Schuman,
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Louis C. Sutherland,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
COMMITTEE ON HEARING, BIOACOUSTICS, AND BIOMECHANICS
1993-1994
William A. Yost (Chair),
Parmly Hearing Institute, Loyola University
Peter J. Dallos,
Auditory Research Laboratory, Northwestern University
Kenneth M. Eldred,
Kenneth Eldred Engineering, East Boothbay, Maine
Joseph W. Hall,
Division of Otology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
William Melnick,
Columbus, Ohio
Janet M. Weisenberger,
Ohio State University, Columbus
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
1 |
Social survey findings available in 1980 about the prevalence of annoyance associated with exposure to high-energy impulsive sound |
|||
2 |
Social survey information available to date about the prevalence of annoyance associated with community exposure to high-energy impulsive sounds |
|||
3 |
Relationship between equally annoying impulsive and nonimpulsive noises |
|||
4 |
Relationship between annoyance of blast sounds and motor vehicle passby |
|||
5 |
Comparison of rates of growth of annoyance of aircraft flyovers and simulated sonic booms |
|||
6 |
Levels of sonic booms and aircraft flyovers judged equally annoying |
|||
7 |
Comparison of rates of growth of annoyance with at-ear level for impulsive and nonimpulsive sounds reported in controlled-exposure studies |
|||
8 |
Dosage-response relationship of Method 1: Adaptation of Green and Fidell (1991) model |
|||
9 |
Comparison of dosage-response relationship recommended in CHABA (1981) with Method 1: Adaptation of Green and Fidell (1991) model, using CDNL as predictor variable |
10 |
Dosage-response relationship of Method 2 (level-dependent summation) using CDNL for 10 events per day |
|||
11 |
Dosage-response relationship of Method 2 (level-dependent summation) using CDNL for 100 events per day |
|||
12 |
Method 2 (level-dependent summation) fit to social survey results for impulse noises |
Tables
1 |
Rates of growth (exponents of magnitude estimates) of annoyance and loudness judgments for various signals with presentation level |
|||
2 |
Alternate approaches to predicting the prevalence of annoyance associated with exposure to high-energy impulsive noise |
|||
3 |
Annoyance units (AU) as a function of sound exposure level (Method 2) |
|||
4 |
Circumstances favoring alternate methods of predicting the prevalence of impulse-noise-induced annoyance in communities |
|||
5 |
Differences between controlled-exposure and social survey studies of noise-induced annoyance |
|||
6 |
Tabulation of social survey data presented in Figure 2 |
Acknowledgments
The working group invited and received contributions to its technical discussions from George Luz, Karl Pearsons, Allan Rosenheck, Paul Schomer, and Kevin Shepherd; we thank them for their helpful contributions to our deliberations. We also acknowledge two recently published works, Fidell and Pearsons (1993) and Schomer (1994), which contributed significantly to our work. We are indebted to Elizabeth Fletcher for work on the production of this report.